Alan Henning's brother calls for ground troops against IS - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/t1le.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29511736[/url] [quote]His brother told BBC News."You're not going to find them by dropping a few bombs in Iraq. "We need send ground forces in to find out where these monsters are - the sooner we do it, the sooner the killing stops." Mr Henning said the family had been "gagged by the government and the Foreign Office" over the kidnapping. "It's been a living nightmare, keeping it quiet for nine months," he said. Mr Henning added: "I've hardly slept, I've felt physically sick. "We've seen the campaign... if this was done, say, six months ago it could have done more good."[/quote]

On one hand, he's right - it's just about the only way to really destroy ISIS. On the other hand, America is tired of war.

It's a bit late to be finally considering boots on the ground, because what we've done is given them a head start in territory control and now we need to play catch-up to drive them back out and away from existence completely. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46169585]On one hand, he's right - it's just about the only way to really destroy ISIS. On the other hand, America is tired of war.[/QUOTE] Well, it's a good thing that.. [quote]Alan Henning's brother has called on David Cameron to put [b]British troops[/b] on the ground in Syria and Iraq to catch the Islamic State "monsters" who killed him.[/quote] He wants British troops and not US troops, at the same time, there wasn't a single mention of America in the whole article too so I don't know where you got American boots from.

[QUOTE]He wants British troops and not US troops, at the same time, there wasn't a single mention of America in the whole article too so I don't know where you got American boots from.[/QUOTE] We all know damn well If any Western power (Especially Britain) sends boots on the ground the US will be a huge supplier in not only equipment but manpower as well.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46169638]It's a bit late to be finally considering boots on the ground, because what we've done is given them a head start in territory control and now we need to play catch-up to drive them back out and away from existence completely. Well, it's a good thing that.. He wants British troops and not US troops, at the same time, there wasn't a single mention of America in the whole article too so [b]I don't know where you got American boots from.[/b][/QUOTE] I think at this point it's just sort of assumed that if it's got to do with going to war in hot and dusty places, America's gonna have a hand in it

Just looking at that picture makes me physically sad.

[QUOTE=Mr.Goodcat;46169724]We all know damn well If any Western power (Especially Britain) sends boots on the ground the US will be a huge supplier in not only equipment but manpower as well.[/QUOTE] From what I recall somewhere it's been said unless in the case of invasion, Falklands etc Britain wouldn't commit to a foreign war without nato support. I am roughly guessing but we'd need much more troops than we could muster on a deployment scale, our contribution to Afghanistan was 10,000 but to route someone like IS and do what this guy says we'd have to treble that number, this is if we went in solo.

I'm interested to understand how they were "gagged". Like they would push charges against them if they said anything?

[QUOTE=Friendly;46170085]I'm interested to understand how they were "gagged". Like they would push charges against them if they said anything?[/QUOTE] They were most likely gagged to not make tensions rise up with ISIS. Britain may of thought they had a chance to secure a release if the family shut up and let them handle this. [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] The more they spoke = the faster his fate happens

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46169638]It's a bit late to be finally considering boots on the ground, because what we've done is given them a head start in territory control and now we need to play catch-up to drive them back out and away from existence completely. Well, it's a good thing that.. He wants British troops and not US troops, at the same time, there wasn't a single mention of America in the whole article too so I don't know where you got American boots from.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously think the US wouldn't send troops as well, if it were to come to that? [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] We all know what he really means. Everybody expects America to help them.

A coalition force without American troops would be rather tiny.

[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;46169890]From what I recall somewhere it's been said unless in the case of invasion, Falklands etc Britain wouldn't commit to a foreign war without nato support. I am roughly guessing but we'd need much more troops than we could muster on a deployment scale, our contribution to Afghanistan was 10,000 but to route someone like IS and do what this guy says we'd have to treble that number, this is if we went in solo.[/QUOTE] We committed 45,000 troops to the invasion of Iraq but it's very unlikely we'd do that now

I don't disagree with putting boots on the ground but can America n Co really afford to spend even more money in the region?